Evaluating two iterations of a paired stimulus preference assessment

Abstract

The paired stimulus preference assessment (PSPA) is commonly used in both research and practice. However, two iterations have been described: a single‐presentation arrangement in which each tested stimulus is paired with one another once and a double‐presentation arrangement in which each tested stimulus is paired twice with counterbalanced placement. Each arrangement may have different advantages; however, no direct comparison exists. Thus, the purpose of the current study was to conduct both PSPA iterations to determine whether there are differences in the results obtained and which iteration was most efficient regarding time to administer. Seven participants were included, and results demonstrated high degrees of correspondence across preference assessment formats. The average time to administer the single‐presentation PSPA (M =6.6 min) was almost half the time to administer a double‐presentation PSPA (M =12.9 min), and no significant differences were observed for problem behavior, side biases, or latency to stimulus selection.